NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

Hi guys.

As you all know, Intel is now developing its mobile Atom platform. This, coupled with arguably 'real' OSs like Windows, or desktop versions of Linux, would make an interesting product if they can get the size and battery life right.

Do you think it is a good idea to get a Nokia Internet Tablet now? Should we wait until the price drops? I am just afraid that if I pay $230 for a N800 today, next week we will be looking at sub $200 prices (rhetorically).

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

MIT's won't be sub $200 and won't reach the power efficiency of an ARM. Plus they're big. You'll need enormous pockets... All this have been discussed before here, just search.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

Im pretty sure it will take a while for intel to come to this size and still get such a battery life. you just dont know how much you are already missing by not getting a nit. Since the next version is coming a few days from now..... just hold on for 2 more weeks and you will have more options and better prices to chose. But take the plunge it is well worth it!!

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

It just seems that with an x86 processor, a lot more software would be available.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

Well nokia first introduced their first tablet in 2005 and even before that they have been researching this field quite a while. They also have great experience with thier mobile phones. What i am saying is that it took nokia lots of hard work for nokia to get such a device at such a low price with great battery life. Intel has come into the ultraportable category only recently and i expect them to take a while before they settle down and i am sure they will not be sub 500$ devices in the near future.
So if you want to wait more and pay more then its your call.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

it'll all be opensource software [on ubuntu mobile on x86], so it just needs to be ported to maemo. So you just can do other things like wine. But who wants to taint it with windows software. NIT is far more complete and farther there.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

You never know what tomorrow will bring.

The idea of Intel Atom doesn't seem brand new to me. AMD has Geode and VIA has C7, both are x86 compatible and somewhat mobile and power efficient. Thare are not that many good products with Geode or C7.

Whether MIDs will be any goods depends on many factors we cannot forsee now and all of them are compromises: battery time vs CPU speed / RAM size vs display size vs price. A big factor is software, full-blown Windows or Linux Desktop is OK for those who want to substitute a notebook, but those full-OS-on-small-hardware-devices will always appear inferior compared to real notebooks, iPhones, NITs. A great product probably needs optimized software like Nokia's Maemo or Asus/Xandros EEE.

If you like the form factor of the N8x0 and the available applications, go for it. It seems unlikly someone makes something better at the same size and price. If you'd liked to have something bigger, that's a different story.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

I actually returned the laptop that I had on the notion of an iPod touch. The touch did not support realmedia streaming and custom installable fonts, both of which the N800 do. So I guess answered my own question, eh? ;)

I am just waiting on a good deal for it.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

its all a question of do you like proprietary or not.

iPod Touch is a media player with locked in functions, maemo is the exact opposite.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

I'll throw a random note in here. A common misconception is that the ARM processor is the major factor that prevents you from using all your typical Linux desktop apps on the NITs. This is really only true in a couple cases. (specifically: firefox2, openoffice, and closed source stuff/wine) . Many apps can be made to run but will not run well for the following reasons: the cpu is too slow, not enough RAM, and/or the app doesn't fit in with the desktop well because it is not "hildonized," has dialog windows bigger than the screen, or runs processes in the background that deplete the battery power. Now here is where things get interesting. Implementations of Intel's MID platform are largely based on the Intel Atom processor and seem to come with 512MB - 1GB of RAM. They run Ubuntu Mobile which uses Hildon (same as on the NITs) and parts of Maemo, AFAICT. At first glance the 800-1000Mhz CPU and 512MB+ of RAM seems like a big difference, but the Intel Atom is *not* a fast processor. Clock-for-clock it is *slower* than a Pentium III. And 512MB is more than the 128MB on the tablet, but keep in mind that Ubuntu Mobile will almost certainly be a much heavier OS than Nokia's ITOS. And, the fact that MIDs also use Hildon and seem to have similar resolution screens (800x480 in most cases) mean that they will have the same problems with getting apps to "play nicely" in terms of fitting on the screen and fitting in with the style of the desktop. The three big downsides to the Intel MID platform are: size/weight, battery life and heat. Intel's MIDs almost certainly won't be able to pull off the "always on" trick that the N800/N810 do, and as a result won't be able to periodically check your mail or idle on IM, yet still get great battery life.

If you're still not sure I recommend a wait-and-see approach to find out what the MIDs are really capable of when they're released. Intel's Atom is not a silver bullet, just a different compromise than the Omap2 in our N8x0s.

Re: NIT now vs Intel's solutions later (MIDs)?
 

I don't think the applications are meant to be ported directly across platforms. What can and should be is technologies like dbus, ssh, samba and nfs. Those combined with unique (fitting the platform) software that bothers to be developed properly (in the way that ensures integration, which is conveniently what dbus is all about) means nothing is missed, even if the smaller gadget doesn't run the same web browser as a desktop computer.

The NITs allow that just fine, which is why I am concerned Intel may be taking this in the wrong direction. As JohnX mentioned, it's not going to work as a tiny desktop, so why push so hard in the direction of performance?